macvirt

I don't doubt that constructs like vacation mode or conservation of accomplishments / achievements is going to be a future feature. Most likely particularly in relation to DLC. But I sincerely doubt that EA will ever allow an offline mode.

Yeah, including that title was not the smartest idea Had me raising an eyebrow there.

It differs quite a bit on the technical level based on development model that is used, for example waterfall or scrum adaptations. It differs as well based on type of company and publisher relations. In a nutshell, if a publisher is involved that is the level where strategic targeting is translated in to project or venture targets which are then given to management levels of subsiduaries or incorporated franchise studios. From there on it gets nicely subtle, as the people who do the actual (real) work of design, programming etc. work within the roadmaps thus passed down. Today the customer is essentially just a resource, which is why all too often it is forgotten that it is a lot less about a desired vision from above than it is about the vision of the customer.

Well um, not to burst anyone's bubbles ... but this is *not* good news, if you somehow expect this means that EA will turn towards the customer. The business model EA uses requires them to strive towards control over volume markets and customer behavioural patterns. The next CEO will apply lessons learned from the past two years in messaging, marketing and financing dependancies. That is the strategy by default. The previous CEO is briefly taking over, further reinforcing an escalation, so to speak, of the use of such methods. Because the methods are what works in our current societal systems and circumstances. All you can reasonably expect is for EA to become smarter in its messaging, smarter in its timing of messaging and much more strategically orientated in its financing and marketing for sales of ventures. In simple terms, this is not in the interest of the consumers who today feel that EA does not really serve them as customers. Ofcourse, they are right, simply because EA's strategic requirement is control over patterning and the necessity to enforce their requirements of functioning on volume markets. In the interest of gaming, so to speak, it would serve consumers if EA went bust. That would provide room for leaner businesses to not confuse their own wishes with that of customers, for game developers with flexible funding instruments to maintain control over their relation with their customers, and so forth. Not to mention how richly rewarding it would be for investors, the battles of rights and licenses and the freedom of incorporated studios. I realise folks want to chear a bit, I can't blame people for that. The reality however is that this really is a worst case scenario for the future of gaming of those franchises EA controls and picks up or develops in the near future. If you think the current mess is bad, you are right, but you underestimate the energy the "next" EA is going to pour into instruments to ensure that you will never get the opportunity to make up your own mind again. If you think Lucy Bradshaw is terrible at Big Lie methodology, you are right, but EA is not going to even run that risk of exposure again. If anything the recent directives have shown the incredible potential for EA's strategic goals in dominance and control. They are not going to abandon that, they just can't, it is how they are required to function. There is no adaptation possible. Not in the least because of all those investment return cycles committed on for the next years and years to come.

Where exactly do you get the numbers from that it's halfway to outselling simcity 4? If you're going to cite facts you need to provide a source. It's also hardly suprising that its sold more than the earlier simcity games, the market size is much much larger now. I can't help but think a game more like Simcity 4 but with better graphics and a few more options would have sold a lot more than Simcity 2013 has. Not to mention how it is comparing relative scales We can't compare the sales figures of an SC1 with those of an SC XYZ, different market targets, different times, different economies, different volumes. And so forth Ofcourse, that does not stop people, this is after all the art of statistics ...

Alright, this may require taking some distance in order to get your head around it, as it is a bit counterintuïtive because the narrative today is so persistent that it takes quite a bit to punch through it. Corporate growth today is about concentrating wealth. It stopped being about creating wealth once Reagan removed the final buffer mechanisms of checks & balances on enterprise and financing accountability. Even our economists back home have severe issues recognising the situation and circumstances (in contrast to the rest of the world, particularly China these days) because we were brought up thinking that desires are a right and a reality equally. So ofcourse today in the prime interest of growth of a company (again, accumulating as much capability to concentrate wealth - as creating wealth is considered too much of a long term lesser gain concept) the customer is not the one to win out in the end. On the contrary, in order for that kind of operational requirements to succeed the customer *must* become a resource, the customer *cannot* realise his actual role, the customer *has* to buy, and buy again without regard for personal need or wish or even expectation. That is why in our industry we saw the potential for creating a complete specification for a title and then cutting it up in pieces around a shell concept. That is why we invented DLC, and that is why we strive to make it all conditional. The customer is not expected to even want a fully functioning game upon release. That is for those silly struggling indie's, come on! That is why we hype, and why when things go sour and we get caught with our pants around our ankles that we use marketing in a strict application of Big Lie methodologie. We learned it from the finance and banking industries, why are people surprised that we treat our industry as an industry? Not that I still agree with the mentality, but at least for the contexts of EA and SC2013 things should be clearer to people now.

Agreed in principle. Unfortunately though I can't deny that EA's marketing is responsible for creating those expectations throughout the marketing campaign up to the month prior to release. If EA's marketing would have just had an honest focus on how SC2013 is different, where it is better, where it approaches what how, we would have a whole lot less of an issue out of created expectations. People would have taken the product as something new, and not as something next (so to speak). But, that was a conscious strategic decision by EA. They wanted to use an existing customerbase as a catalyst for messaging, reception and exposure management. They elected to follow these methodologies. What pains me, is that when people proverbially punched through the marketing EA ignored it, classed such feedback as evil and jumped in a trench of Big Lie management. That's not just sad, that's also what ultimately kills brand value, which is really quite important for investment management - which EA relies on. Really it comes down to this. If any game company is going to use an existing IP to sell a product (or 'service'... ick) then that company must remain true to the IP's core features. EA could have called this game SimCity Online (my preferred title when describing it to others), but they didn't. The IP was misused and tricked a lot of people into buying a game they wouldn't have otherwise. And even for those that find the Online concept ok, the simulation portion of this game is pretty bad right now. Thus even more people are rightfully angry. The fact that SC4 has way more features than the new game plays into this only in that it sets a certain expectation for a new entry in this series. If the question is asked "will you choose to play the new game" and "if not, why?" a large part of the answer in most cases seems to be this game just doesn't live up to its legacy, but it is marketed as if it will. The really short version: EA: only our wishes & wants matter. Customers are resources. We do not have to cater to them, we just have to build towards controlling them. Customers: awesome! I preorderded! If EA had been smart, they would not have lost themselves in to making it about them. The best businesses are the best because they make it and keep it about the customer (or who are the best at lying to the customer, but those businesses tend to hit & run and not seek dominance). Case in point, John Riccitiello plays games. Checks the competition's works. Does his homework, so to speak. But elects to make it about EA's wishes & wants. See the case in point? The real irony, by the way, is that John got used. By EA itself, or rather by those who came before him but never left. Not set up to fail, but set up to be used. He's had ample warnings over time, but he elected to play the "game". Trouble is, when you try to be a shark in a pool where there's only other sharks there comes a point where you have to realise that you are potential food too.

I apologize for cutting into your posts, as they are very informative, in their entirety! I just wanted to ask, maybe at this point, rhetorically, as it is obvious they will never "bend to the will" of the consumer, what are the consumers' options? There have been literally over thousands of voices trying to make a change with this, and absolutely nothing - other than, basically, more PR. When does a corporation become so big that it really thinks it does not need its consumers? I did read the psycopathy, again, very informative and based on the actions seen with this game, it makes sense. There is a bigger reason behind the scenes, right? Data mining, collecting info to be sold to advertisers, etc.,? Is that why us consumers feel we don't have a voice, with this? P.S. I know there are more important issues going on in this world, today, that I do pay attention to - this is just a game, after all, but, moments of destressing are important, also!! I'm in agreement with RPS on that. 1. Never preorder anything. 2. Never believe any marketing, any messaging from anyone trying to sell anything to you. 3. Inform yourself. If a manufacturer or publisher does not allow you to try out a product or service to your satisfaction do not buy from them. 4. Do not buy anything that tests your personal expectations. Our society is built on a necessity for consumers to buy and buy and buy regardless of whether it suits them, caters to their needs or wishes and above all regardless of whether the product or service actually does what it promises. This is a broken model. We have seen it in our housing industry, our construction industry, our finance industry, even in our politics. All forms of human interaction has natural limits to the abilty of a society to treat trust as a currency without recognising that it is a foundation requirement. The only power consumers have is not to buy. Pure and simple. This does not destroy business. It does not destroy economies. Smart business sees such trends, caters to them, and seizes the opportunities presented. Unfortunately all our industry strives towards becoming what people call "too big to fail". We refuse to adapt, we invest solely to control and to maintain status quo. This is the reason even the smartest politicians and John & Jane Doe citizen cannot get our economies to function properly because functioning properly means adapting to changing circumstances. And let's be honest, this is where members of ASEAN and the EU have far better potential than our US because in our society being the biggest equals having the power to resist adaptation, the power to negate the necessity of adapting, the power to remove the changes in conditions and circumstances through narrative control. What we're seeing today is that our systems based on consumerism are starting, and I do mean only just now starting, to struggle because instinctively a group dynamic always reaches for influence over its own circumstances. The past thirty years our politics and our economics have been able to use that through the strict instrumentation of narrative control (shaping perception) and the management of fear (to keep all noses in the same system pointing the same way). Let's be honest, how many people still feel they have influence on a politics that has meaning. How many people still feel to have influence or even rights in our economic systems of business. How many people are closing the wallet because of fear, and how many instinctively grow cautious because it really is the only recourse left. Ok, bit of an off topic moment there, though it is not really that off topic. It's a mindset issue, one that also plays out in our industry. I'm going to be brutally honest here, happy to have a degree of anonimity from my peers in places like these. Consumers are slaves. That is how they are discussed, talked about, referred to, used as. Pure and simple. The only thing slaves can do in our current systems is to not buy, and keep an eye out for those businesses who do not treat them like resources, who do not use Big Lie methodologies and who do not confuse their own visions and expectations with those of customers. EA wanted dominance. It still wants that. But because of the mindset that grew EA, and I have posted this over the past months probably too repeatedly, the executive levels and the connected investment elements all fell prey to a desdain of that which really enables them. They forced themselves in to a format of running short cycles of investments and ventures constantly eating up pieces of their own potential and revenues. They forced themselves in to a position counterproductive to their ultimate goals. And that is quite an accomplishment, considering those goals really are not in the interest of any consumer because those goals were presented to secure control over consumers. It is twisted, I know, and really only the bonus culture syndrome, management psychopathy syndrome (nothing personal, really do some research on this and you will be amazed) and the focus on confusing perspectives and enablement variables that have gotten EA in to the current situation. It's basically shooting yourself in the foot, knowingly, but doing it anyway because you believe that if you use the Big Lie methods long ago you will own the ranch anyway. Let's be honest, how many more examples of these things do we have to see. Mortgage brokers, construction venture firms, real estate markets, banks, finance, I do think it is fair to say that since the '80's we have seen too much of these issues. No wonder people, that strange human animal, seeks other ways of securing its interests.

Wrong. Great visions on ventures always start with a general approach of "guys this is an awesome idea, what do we know of what people out there might find awesome about it and how do we match that". The greatest games have always began as projects on the questions of "what do people want and what do people need". It is after that where other parts of the challenge start, for example how to package that, how to sell that, how to seperate groups from the generic volume markets so that they become a customer and a fanbase. Or rather, that is how it started out in our industry. Today it is different. For example, it is no longer "done" to approach matters to seperate groups from generic volumes, it is now required to use existing seperate groups in order to reach and utilise generic volumes. The difference may seem subtle at first, but is extremely significant and has deep consequences for customers and customer groups. EA is a prime example, because in many ways they create the trends that are shaping this industry. And yes, EA specifically collects resources to match their vision, their targets, their money. Developers, just like the computers they use, just like the customers expected to buy quietly and all resources. EA tunes all resources to maximise its strategies and gains. This is an industry. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is no surprise that EA managed to beat one of the most corrupt banks with the most desdain for its customers with its customer support ratings. It is a non factor for how such enterprises function. It is not about the customer, not about the developer, it is not about the resources. It is about maximising gain (which includes gaining control over trends in how the industry itself develops). That is the idea behind business. I'm talking about art. These two different mindsets tend to contradict themselves. When it comes to things of need, and things of use, yes the business model of wondering what it can do for others is a good mindset to have. When it comes to creating something that is more or less art(video games are works of art in my opinion) you want to follow your vision first. It doesn't hurt to take in suggestions but letting your "fanbase" run how the game turns out is far too risky and more likely than not results in too many disappointed. You simply cannot please everyone. But they do not have to clash. Take the now leaving CEO of EA. Smart guy, wrong mindset, completely caught in confusing his perspectives with those of customers. Sure, played games (also competing titles), and sure he had his own contacts for the perspective of the art(s) (so to speak), but because he forgot that selling is about selling what the customer wants and not about selling what you want or about what you need the customer to want, things bumped against a self-made wall. This is something which gets me every time we're at a conference in Europe, in Asia or back home. The publishers who run the business as an investment or venture capital project all consistantly forget that if they are to succeed they cannot afford to a) get caught in short cycle management and b) make it about them and not about the customer. As I said before, such mindsets regardless of industry or sector of society result in treating everything as a resource. Including those who do the actual work, and those who buy the work. That's never a good idea if you want to grow to rule any industry.

A good read providing insights can be found on Kotaku.

Agreed in principle. Unfortunately though I can't deny that EA's marketing is responsible for creating those expectations throughout the marketing campaign up to the month prior to release. If EA's marketing would have just had an honest focus on how SC2013 is different, where it is better, where it approaches what how, we would have a whole lot less of an issue out of created expectations. People would have taken the product as something new, and not as something next (so to speak). But, that was a conscious strategic decision by EA. They wanted to use an existing customerbase as a catalyst for messaging, reception and exposure management. They elected to follow these methodologies. What pains me, is that when people proverbially punched through the marketing EA ignored it, classed such feedback as evil and jumped in a trench of Big Lie management. That's not just sad, that's also what ultimately kills brand value, which is really quite important for investment management - which EA relies on.

I doubt a lot of people mind that you *can* play online and *can* play with others. The issue is more that of arbitrary and enforced decisions by EA that do not take customer expectation patterns in to account for strategic directives. Forcing a user is in game design something you are always taught to avoid, you guide the user. There is a distinction between the two. Denying people the ability to play on their own offline as a DRM construct is the visible issue. Under the surface it's that of people simply do not like being forced. An MMO it is never going to be. Maybe one day when they merge the Sims with SimCity, but even then. It's just more marketing talk, without a whole lot of actual research behind it to be honest. It's a bit sad to see.

Yup ^^

To be honest, while reddit remains a niche, and while EA have already utilised communities like this one to generate messaging pre-release, if there is one headache potential in the exposure management it is that of the mainstream consumer industry sites. For example, RPS. Sure, there are a lot of "easy" (and cheap to buy) places out there, but there are several ones which create trends in exposure patterns. RPS certainly has not helped EA, though I must admit that if RPS continues the course of moving further towards journalism (as opposed to mere reporting, so to speak) it is certainly not going to be unhealthy for the future of the industry as a whole.

Indeed, besides you'll probably be enabled to buy more later on.

Well, to keep it simple, it's nothing personal, it's business. In the present approach of format and directives it makes more sense to emphasise the commercial prospects of finishing a project after selling it. Deadlines are always an issue in their own right, but most of the time those too are carefully designed to create conditions that favour the beforementioned prioritisation approaches.

That is the crux though. If you can find a way to sell it, anything is allowed. Lying and manipulation of information is crucial to this kind of venture development. Long term consequences are never prioritised because in order for the format to succeed you have to keep repeating it constantly. It is the games industry equivalent of "too big to fail". Short cycle management. It's remarkably similar to short selling. And the irony is, both are done with other people's money

No, not everything is an agent. There is also an agent collection system, and an agent transaction system. If everything were an agent you would have an interesting high complexity simulation, but that is not the case. Unfortunately. This is where fudging comes in, a common instrument in game design, it's just that usually publishers do not lie and state that they do not use it and then have their pants dropped

Will Wright has said a great many worse things over the years Bad damage control

EA always has the final word. Maxis is a brand name. Nothing more. EA purchased all the relevant rights. But indeed, there is a very potential conflict here between the people who work for this project and EA. Especially now that EA has disallowed all modding discussion on their forums, and now that they have introduced unspecified arbitrary statements again on how hacking will result in banning, but refuse to comment on what constitutes hacking ..... while modification of packages is perfectly in line with statements from Ocean and others that it is modding, something the game is explicitly designed for ....

Interesting approach to narrative control isn't it? Calling it a hack while it really is a mere modification in manners explicitly allowed by Maxis while EA has suddenly again kneejerked because modding is capable of enabling offline play, local save, bypassing Origin authentication and so forth. Without even stating rules they are disallowing modding discussion on their forums, without clarifications on any difference between modding and their perception of when modding becomes hacking. Very interesting.

Yes. The capability is already present within the client. Ofcourse it is problematic now, as while Maxis states modding is allowed it is EA who states that hacking is disallowed and will result in banning but they do not make any mention of what constitutes hacking. Arbitrary judgement. SC2013 is indeed built to be extremely easy to mod through package editing, extension, addition. But since the past few days EA went into paranoid mode again we have no idea what is allowed now or not.

Um, I recall a discussion of last year on an industry panel where the Sims 3 store prices were described as a stepping stone towards more reasonable price tiers, stating that the store example used in the presentation was an example of too low prices. This is one issue where I honestly hope for "maxis" staff to have more input on than EA, either through smart management and presentation of information towards people upstairs or through masqueraded control over production flows and attached decision points. Realistically though, I do not see how pricing tiers around a 15 dollar mark would generate sufficient volume sales as opposed to far more attractive lower price tiers and combination offers.

More on topic though, I realise it was a bit of a joke, but I would not count on such a scenario actually being unrealistic. In our country it is incredibly easy to either lure or force governance in to using the work of citizens to pay for the mistakes or abuse by a select few. Even on a state or city level, it is so easy to force councils or a state government in to shelling out money, giving easy tax deals and so forth with the magic of completely intangible and unrealistic promises of employing people and generating income, promises which are never kept. Personally I find the entire situation concerning SC2013 still extremely interesting. A game well made for the given directives and targets (yes, that is different from a good and fully functioning game - definitions are always relative to interests), well tailored to current market trends, very much in supporting service of actively engaged upon strategic goals. Something which really should function as a textbook case of how to work towards strategic goals on an industry level. Yet EA manages to completely bork it, step by step. And really the only instrument they maintain is that of the beforementioned Big Lie doctrine. The way things continue to unfold is almost hilarious, yet it is also painful. I would not wish to be a maxis non-management and non-marketing staff member contemplating his or her future career prospects, or even dreams of how amazing it is to design games and be (part of something) awesome. I honestly feel dire sympathy for them.

But ofcourse bad capitalism is rewarded. That is how our system functions, because we are indoctrinated to believe in the need to believe, without even validating the requirements for the functioning of our systems. Look at our ideologies. I'm a Republican, I am a strong advocate of principles of liberalism. But I recognise that what was theory has become dogma and in many ways even religion. We refuse to guard ourselves against the vulnerabilities of human behaviour, not because we find out that it is not necessary, but because it is evil to even consider talking about historically proven necessities of buffering against excesses in behaviour. Our society rewards excessive behaviour that thrives on throwing the very principle of "first do no harm" out of the window. We do not look for consequences, we do not look for dependancies, we do not look beyond the current road (not to mention a horizon). It is about money, here and now, regardless of the cost for ourselves even in the long run. As long as that form of societal organisation persists, EA will not go bankrupt. It will continue to milk short cycle management at the expense of that which really keeps it alive. Customers, employees, citizens, people. This is our reality. We as humans always want to believe, simple as that.